Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Top Trump Administration Official Decline To Provide Evidence That Soleimani Would Attack Four U.S. Embassies; Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D- CA) Says She Has No Regrets About Withholding Articles. Aired 6-7p ET

Aired January 12, 2020 - 18:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[18:00:07]

CABRERA: All of these events are directly linked to the targeted killing of Iran's top general nine days ago in a U.S. drone strike.

U.S. officials, including the president himself, have insisted that Qasem Soleimani's death was justified, pointing to specific imminent danger he posed to American people and American interests. What exactly that threat has been has not yet been made crystal clear.

But it appears the secretary of defense on CNN this morning, Jake Tapper asking him three times to back up the president's claim that Iranian forces were about to attack four U.S. embassies around the world.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: Was there intelligence the Iranians were plotting to target four U.S. embassies?

MARK ESPER, U.S. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: There was intelligence that they -- there was an attempt to target the U.S. embassy in Baghdad. What the president said with regard to the four embassies is what I believe as well, that he said he believed that they probably -- that they could have been targeting the embassies in the region. I believed that as well as the other national security team members.

TAPPER: Was there specific intelligence that he was plotting to attack four U.S. embassies? Did you see any intelligence like that?

ESPER: I'm not going to discuss the intelligence on the show. Let me just say that --

TAPPER: The president did though.

ESPER: The president never said there was specific intelligence to --

TAPPER: He said he believed it.

ESPER: And I believed it too.

TAPPER: Four embassies? Do you believe that?

ESPER: I believed there were threats to multiple embassies. That's why we reinforced embassies with additional troops.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CABRERA: Live now to CNN White House Correspondent Jeremy Diamond. And, Jeremy, Secretary Esper there still unable to specify the threat to American people and property. Are you hearing anything clearer from the White House today?

JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Ana, it's been ten days since the president authorized that strike that killed the Iranian general, Qasem Soleimani, but the administration's messaging appears to be only getting more muddled, frankly. And we saw that with on display this morning as the secretary of defense, Mark Esper, and the national security adviser, Ambassador O'Brien, were both on the Sunday shows struggling to try and both stick with the facts, with what the intelligence has actually said without actually contradicting the president. And that is, of course, because of the president's comments just a couple of days ago where he said that there were four embassies that were target of this imminent threat from Iran.

It was quite clear hearing from Secretary Esper when he said that he did not see that intelligence that that intelligence about four embassies being specifically targeted does not appear to exist. And so instead, we saw this kind of contorting dance from these officials trying again to kind of make both sides fit here. But that is kind of the messaging that we've seen from this administration as they have struggled to explain all of this. And, again, it comes back to this question of an imminent threat, and that is the question that members of Congress are asking.

CABRERA: Jeremy, we have this just in to CNN, new pictures of large, angry and growing protest, it appears, in Iran. People are furious there, furious with the government after they admitted to shooting down that civilian airliner. The president is watching what's happening in Tehran. What's his response?

DIAMOND: He certainly is. And we have seen the president now express his solidarity with those protesters several times on Twitter both today and yesterday, both in English and as well in Farsi. The president tweeting just a couple of hours ago, to the leaders of Iran, do not kill your protesters. Thousands have already been killed or imprisoned by you and the world is watching. More importantly, the USA is watching. Turn your internet back on and let reporters roam free. Stop the killing of your great Iranian people.

So as we have seen the president not only express solidarity with those protesters who were calling for the resignation of that country's supreme leader, we are also seeing the president now issuing a stark warning to the Iranians again just days this military confrontation between these two nations. Ana?

CABRERA: Jeremy Diamond at the White House, thank you.

It's important to step back and look at just how America and Iran got to this point. A major turning point, if not, the catalyst was the president's decision to leave the Iran nuclear deal, something he promised to do as a nominee and has since made a routine part of his election pitch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: the Iran deal, it was just something that is no good for our country.

By the way, I ended the Iran nuclear deal. I hope you're happy.

I withdrew from the horrible, one-sided Iran nuclear deal, a disaster.

I withdrew the United States from that disastrous Iran nuclear deal and implemented those sanctions.

I withdrew the United States from the disastrous Iran nuclear deal.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CABRERA: Regardless what you thought of the nuclear deal, it would be hard to argue walking away has led to any easing of tensions with Iran.

Let me take you through this. In June of last year, the U.S. blames Iran for attacking oil tankers in the Strait of Hormuz. Roughly two weeks later, Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps downs a U.S. surveillance drone.

[18:05:01]

One month later, the Iranian Navy captures another tanker in the Strait of Hormuz. A month after that, another U.S. surveillance drone is shot down, this time over Yemen. And the Houthis, Iranian-backed group, takes responsibility. A month after that, the U.S. accuses Iran of attacking to Saudi Arabian oil facilities, wiping out an astonishing 5 percent of the world's oil supply.

Now, in early December, a bright spot, a small glimmer hope, as they U.S. and Iran exchange prisoners. Now, fast forward to just days after Christmas, the U.S. blames an Iranian-backed militia group for rocket attack on an Iraqi military base that killed a U.S. civilian contractor. Days later, the U.S. responds by striking facilities in Syria and Iraq linked to the Iranian-backed group.

On New Year's Eve, Iran responds, pro-Iranian demonstrators storm the entrance of the U.S. embassy in Baghdad. The pictures are surreal, protesters attempting to scale the walls. They set fire to the grounds, they break bulletproof windows, they overturn equipment.

What happens next is the news we have been following now for the last last week, President Trump orders a strike against the man considered the second most powerful official in Iran, General Qasem Soleimani. Iran responds by firing ballistic missiles at two Iraqi military bases housing U.S. troops and vows harsher revenge is still to come.

Following those strikes, President Trump addresses the nation, and before he can say anything else, even good morning, he says this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: As long as I'm president of the United States, Iran will never be allowed to have a nuclear weapon.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CABRERA: He also makes this plea.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: The time has come for the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Russia and China to recognize this reality. They must now break away from the remnants of the Iran deal or JCPOA, and we must all work together toward making a deal with Iran that makes the world a safer and more peaceful place.

We must also make a deal that allows Iran to thrive and prosper and take advantage of its enormous untapped potential.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CABRERA: President Trump says he wants a nuclear deal that makes the world a safer place while also allowing Iran to thrive. An argument can be made that the Iran deal the one President Trump walked away from did just that.

Here's a line from the very first paragraph of the 2015 deal, and I quote, Iran reaffirms that under no circumstances will Iran ever seek, develop or acquire any nuclear weapons. The deal capped Iran's uranium enrichment level leaving them just enough to power the country but not enough to have a nuclear weapon. And it had Iran agree to allow inspectors access to its nuclear facilities. In return, all nuclear- related sanctions were lifted and around $150 billion worth of Iranian assets were unfrozen.

Now, even supporters of the deal acknowledged that they couldn't completely insure Iran wouldn't try to covertly enrich uranium but they argued there would be plenty of red flags if that was happen. And during the 2016 campaign, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had this caveat about the deal she helped craft.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HILLARY CLINTON, FORMER DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE: I understand the skepticism so many feel about Iran. I too am deeply concerned about Iranian aggression and the need confront it.

You remember President Reagan's line about the Soviets, trust but verify. My approach will be distrust and verify. We should anticipate that Iran will test the next president.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CABRERA: Now, this is important. At the time President Trump withdrew from the deal, there was no public evidence Iran was secretly enriching uranium. And European inspectors had concluded Iran was abiding by the deal. These were independent international inspectors. Even after President Trump's withdrawal, his own administration testified to Congress that Iran was still within guidelines.

Let's bring in retired Lieutenant Colonel Daniel Davis. Colonel, I want to start with the development that Iran says it will no longer limit itself to the restrictions contained in that nuclear deal, the JCPOA. Do you think the U.S. is safer unbound by the nuclear deal?

LT. COL. DANIEL DAVIS (RET), SENIOR FELLOW, DEFENSE PRIORITIES: Well, I mean, I don't think there can be any question that we're not. And this really highlights in addition to all the things you've just discussed going all the way back to 2015 is that the idea of maximum pressure, which many in this town, especially want to say is almost a substitute for war and will bring about a good outcome, is exactly the opposite. It is a path to war because it doesn't provide any opportunity for Iran to make a new deal.

President Trump came in saying that he was going to negotiate a better deal, well, great.

[18:10:01]

Because even as Secretary Clinton put, there were some improvements to be made. Unfortunately, we don't have any opportunity for that because we have shut off our ability to talk to them, we've denied Zarif the ability to even come to the United States to talk diplomatically. And from people I've talked to recently, he has never talked to -- Secretary of State Pompeo has never talked to his counterpart in Iran, so how can you negotiate a better deal if you're not even talking.

CABRERA: You said maximum pressure will fail. What do you think should be the strategy in dealing with Iran? What would bring them back to the negotiating table?

DAVIS: Well, I mean, if you started off by saying, okay, we have all these sanctions in place. If you abide by these agreements, these terms that we want to have, then we'll lift that. But critically into that is if you're going to ask something extra from Iran, i.e., we're going to put the ballistic missiles, which many of you are saying was a weakness from the first one, then you're going to have to give something to Iran that they didn't have the last time.

And in this town, the idea of giving anything to Tehran is just (INAUDIBLE). But if you want to reduce the tensions, you're going to have to negotiate with both sides can come out with a win. Otherwise, the chances of war will continue to go up and we're not out of the woods yet.

CABRERA: What would you give?

DAVIS: Number one, I would say, hey, let's actually start talking. We can do what some of our European allies had requested us to do. And that is like, say, hey, if Iran will do anything at all that we want, let's reduce some of these sanctions and allow them to sell some oil to the European Union, so they want to do that. Then that could build confidence, building measures, et cetera. But you have to do something besides just strangle someone to death or they're going to just act out.

CABRERA: There is a ongoing conversation as well about whether U.S. troops should be removed from Iraq. You believe they should. Make the case.

DAVIS: Yes, there's actually no question about it. As a matter of fact, I've been lobbying for this for quite some time because U.S. troops should never be deployed anywhere unless there is a security interest for the United States, and there is absolutely none. If there was an attainable military objective, it was accomplished when the U.S. drove ISIS out of them out of Raqqa and out of Mosul in Iraq and Syria. At that point, there was no more militarily accomplishable missions to even have.

Now, right now, they suspended what was even the counter-ISIS mission and the train the Iraqi mission. So right now, all we're doing is literally sitting in the desert and wondering if we're going to be attacked. We should never do that because that gives the opportunity for Iran to actually strike back against. If we withdraw those troops, then we deny Iran the ability to kill our troops.

CABRERA: But as you know, the Obama administration withdrew troops from Iran. It created that vacuum that allowed ISIS to explode. That was --

DAVIS: Yes. Actually, that's not what happened at all. That's the common belief but that's not at all what happened. We left the place in a decent position. We gave breathing space for their political organizations to come together. Instead, Maliki used that opportunity to get rid of his political opponents, which directly led to the rise of ISIS. That's the truth.

CABRERA: Lieutenant Colonel Daniel Davis, great to have your perspective. Thanks for being here.

DAVIS: Thank you for having me.

CABRERA: Speaker Nancy Pelosi is accusing Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of a cover-up, as the fight between Republicans and Democrats over witnesses heats up. But will the American public see it the same way? We'll discuss.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:15:00]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS, ABC NEWS HOST: Any second thoughts about holding for three weeks?

REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA): No. We feel that it was -- it has severe positive result in terms of additional emails and unredacted information that has come forward, that Bolton has said that he would testify if subpoenaed by the Senate, other information that has come forward, and more importantly, raising the profile of the fact that we need to have witnesses and documentation. And if we don't, that is a cover-up.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CABRERA: That was Speaker Nancy Pelosi defending her decision to temporarily delay the Senate's impeachment trial by withholding the articles against the president. Now, she is expected to transfer them over this week.

Let's discuss with Republican Strategist Alice Stewart and former Deputy Assistant General Elliot Williams.

Alice, when you consider what we've learned while these articles have been withheld, that 90 minutes after President Trump's call with Zelensky, a White House official told the Pentagon to freeze aid to Ukraine and that same official says he was acting on direct orders from President Trump, also, we have John Bolton now willing to testify. Considering all that hasn't this worked in the Democrats' favor?

ALICE STEWART, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I don't see how. Three weeks later, we learned what we knew three weeks ago that Nancy Pelosi controls the rules of the House proceedings and Mitch McConnell controls the rules in the Senate proceedings. And after all this time, there have been no concessions on the part of Mitch McConnell because he doesn't have to. He can call the witnesses or the witnesses that doesn't want to call in the Senate proceedings.

And, unfortunately, what Speaker Pelosi's delaying of turning over these articles to the Senate has done, it has really put the Democratic candidates who are running for president in a bind, because these next few weeks when they need to be campaigning in Iowa, they're going to be sitting in an impeachment trial and that's going to severely hamper them. But regardless, the outcome will be the same. the Senate will vote to acquit the president and we will move on with business as usual.

CABRERA: George Conway, prominent lawyer, Trump critic, husband of White House Counselor Kellyanne Conway, has some advice for Pelosi. He writes alongside Law Professor Neal Katyal that Pelosi should actually split up the articles. Quoting here, she should choose to tweak her announcement and send only the second article on obstruction for trial or she could transmit them both along with a House-approved provision advising the Senate that if it fails to obtain adequate witnesses and documents, the House will reopen the investigation into Article I and subpoena the material itself.

[18:20:01]

Elliot, would that be a smart move?

ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: It could be and it could be an interesting legal move, and not only it would keep the conversation going.

Something else to keep in mind is that the House can still open and conduct investigations. So all of this talk about John Bolton, will he testify in the Senate, the House can still call him. They can still issue a subpoena for him. So we're placing a lot of stock on will Mitch McConnell break and call John Bolton, and I just don't know if that's the case.

To push back a little bit on Alice's point, yes, she makes some great points here, but, look, as long as we are talking about this -- and the speaker said this this morning -- as long as we are talking about witnesses and talking John Bolton, you are putting senators like Susan Collins and Cory Gardner and senators that have to be in tough elections later on this year in a tough spot. They do not -- the last thing on earth, they want or need is to cast the vote on someone like John Bolton, in effect, saying -- raising their hand and saying, I don't care if John Bolton testifies and so on. And so what they are likely to do strike a deal here to avoid taking a vote.

So, yes, I think this is a little esoteric and for the public to understand. But what we've had as a national conversation about the president's obstruction of Congress and not sending witnesses to testify in. So, yes, there are arguments to be made about the fact that this has been drawn out over three weeks. But we're talking about these people and there are four or five senators that really don't want to cast a vote here.

CABRERA: To your point, Elliot, the House still has the power to subpoena John Bolton and have him talk to them, why aren't they?

WILLIAMS: Well, again, right now, he is still relevant witness for the Senate proceeding. I think they want to see how that plays out. But they still -- and, look, he has signified that he might be willing and receptive to testifying, so wait and see.

We don't know -- like, look, Anderson Cooper the other night, Anderson Cooper said that John Bolton is a Rorschach Test. Everybody sees something different in what they might get out of his testimony and no one knows what he's going to do or where he's going to go.

But, certainly, if he doesn't end up testifying in the House, I don't think that's the end of John Bolton in the last --

CABRERA: Do you think, Alice, John Bolton would actually help the president's case if he were to testify or is he saying, I don't want him to testify because he's worried?

STEWART: Look, I think Democrats are overplaying their hand if they really think that John Bolton is going to give something that is going to be terribly incriminating to this president for many reasons. He still wants to have a voice on national stage and he doesn't want to get in bad light with this president.

And to be honest, if he had some incriminating information and something of value, he should have come forward long ago. But to Elliot's point about John Bolton being a Rorschach Test, the entire impeachment proceeding is a Rorschach Test. Democrats will always, no matter, think this president should be impeached and Republicans see that there is no grounds for impeachment in this case moving forward. And the reality is that Nancy Pelosi is still wanting to interview witnesses and bring new information to light. That tells us right there that they rushed to seek articles of impeachment before they made their case in the House. And it is not Mitch McConnell's to complete the job that should have been done in the House. She should have done it then and it's going to happen in the Senate.

WILLIAMS: But here is the thing. It might be a Rorschach Test but a clear majority of Americans support it. So regardless of the fact that some people might see different things, the American people are behind, the fact that the president was impeached, he can probably get a majority of Americans who say, the president ought to be removed.

And so, yes, feelings are high on both sides but I don't think this is just an ink blot where everybody is seeing different things.

CABRERA: And, in fact, I think the polling is between 45 percent to 50 percent of Americans right now basically said in September up until now have been in that camp of the president should be impeached and removed.

But, Alice, let me push the conversation forward in terms of the next step in this process. There has been some talk about having former Republican and now independent Congressman Justin Amash as an impeachment manager at the trial. Here is what he has said about that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JUSTIN AMASH (I-MI): It's something that I've told my Democratic colleagues who have asked me that I'd be happy to talk to the speaker about. But I even had that discussion. If the speaker wants to have that discussion, of course, I'd be honored to have that conversation.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CABRERA: Alice, what do you think of Congressman Amash serving as an impeachment manager?

STEWART: I think that is a pipe dream for the Democrats. That's certainly what they would like to have happen. But, once again, Mitch McConnell will control these proceedings and how they are executed and who is in charge and whether or not they call witnesses. So that might be what Democrats want but I don't see that happening at all.

CABRERA: Elliot, quick final thought?

WILLIAMS: I mean, I'd agree with that as well. I mean, I think it's a stretch to think an independent former Republican member of Congress might end up being a House manager. But everything is on the bale. Look, nothing is normal in 2019 or 2020 and I don't think the rest of this year is going to be particularly normal based on what we've expected to see.

[18:25:01]

And so let's stay tuned, I think. CABRERA: Elliot Williams and Alice Stewart, thank you both. Good to see you.

STEWART: Thanks, Ana, you too.

CABRERA: Friendly fire ahead of the final debate before Iowa caucuses, the Bernie Sanders campaign slams Elizabeth Warren as a candidate of the elite. Hear how Warren is responding, next.

But, first, Christine Romans is here with this week's Before the Bell report. Christine?

CHRISTINE ROMANS, CNN CHIEF BUSINESS CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Ana.

Optimism around the U.S.-China trade deal could drive stocks higher this week. President Trump is scheduled to sign the phase one agreement on Wednesday along with China's vice premier.

Now, the text of the deal still has not been released. Both sides say it calls for China to buy more U.S. farm goods in exchange for some easing of tariffs. The package also contains provisions on intellectual property and currency.

Now, investors also shift their attention to corporate earnings this week. J.P. Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley are among the big banks reporting results. Overall, Wall Street expects a slight decline in fourth quarter earnings for the S&P 500. But if companies do better than that and beat forecasts, like they often do, profits could actually rise for the first time in the year.

That would be a positive sign especially if companies also raised their guidance in 2020.

In New York, I'm Christine Romans.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:30:00]

CABRERA: Just 22 days until the Iowa caucuses, and the campaigning is getting fierce. And maybe a little dirty.

There's new reporting from Politico that the Bernie Sanders campaign has been covertly attacking Elizabeth Warren as a candidate of the upper crust who can't expand the Democratic base in a general election. Politico obtained a script that instructs Sanders' volunteers to criticize Warren with potential voters. Here's Elizabeth Warren's reaction.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I was disappointed to hear that Bernie is sending his volunteers out to trash me. Bernie knows me and has known me for a long time. He knows who I am, where I come from, what I have worked on and fought for. I hope Bernie reconsiders and turns his campaign in a different direction.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CABRERA: Now, Bernie Sanders is downplaying these reports.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: We have over 500 people on our campaign, and people do certain things. I'm sure that in Elizabeth's campaign, people do certain things as well.

But you heard me for months. I have never said a negative word about Elizabeth Warren, who is a friend of mine. We have differences on issues, that's what a campaign is about. But no one is going to be attacking Elizabeth.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CABRERA: CNN's senior Washington correspondent Jeff Zeleny joins us now with more. Jeff, should we expect some fireworks at the debate Tuesday?

JEFF ZELENY, CNN SENIOR WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT: Ana, good evening from a snowy Des Moines. I think, no question, there will be fireworks at the debate on Tuesday largely because time is running out.

There are 22 days before the Iowa caucuses. Come debate time, there will be 20 days. So that is why all candidates, you know, certainly are making their contrasts known between one another. But Bernie Sanders there, Senator Sanders, did not answer the question of whether his campaign is responsible for this.

Now, we have seen this really for weeks, perhaps even longer, you know, online, other things, some Sanders' supporters sending out these messages, but this is actually something from his campaign. And so, I think this, actually, will become a bit of an issue because he has said that he is not going to go negative.

Now, of course, he was, you know, also going after Joe Biden, going after Pete Buttigieg. So it's something that happens routinely at the end of a campaign. Negative campaigning works in some respect, but it, also, is something that voters don't like, so there are big risks that are involved with this type of campaigning.

But the reality here is these four candidates -- Warren, Sanders, Buttigieg, Joe Biden -- they are bunched so closely at the end of this race here that any one of them could win. That is why the -- you know, they're pointing out their differences and their tensions certainly as well, Ana.

CABRERA: Jeff, this bait comes amid new CNN/"Des Moines Register" polling --

ZELENY: Right.

CABRERA: -- that shows the top four candidates -- Sanders, Warren, Buttigieg, and Biden -- they're all locked in a very tight race.

And it's also worth noting that only 45 percent of Iowa caucus-goers say they have settled on a choice. Meantime, look at these numbers. We have voters who were asked to name their first and second choices plus candidates they are actively considering.

And it's worth noting Andrew Yang, for instance, 29 percent of respondents said they are actively considering him. Twenty-eight percent are actively considering Cory Booker still. I mean, how much does it hurt them, those candidates, to not be on that stage Tuesday?

ZELENY: Certainly, that is not helpful for them at all. Cory Booker has been, you know, really waging a strong campaign here for the last year. But to not make the final debate before the Iowa caucuses really is pretty devastating. Andrew Yang, to a lesser degree, because he does have a core following.

But, look, the reality is this large field has winnowed down. Some people, you know, are still very upset at the DNC for these rules, but there's no, you know, mistaking it. They needed to winnow the field, so these are the rules that are in place here.

But by not making the debate stage, it's very difficult for Cory Booker to make the argument to Iowa voters that he is still one of the top candidates. But, Ana, that does not mean that they're not important. In the Iowa caucuses, the second choice can be so critical, and here is why.

[18:35:00]

All the Cory Booker fans out there and other supporters, you know, have a choice to make. If they are not viable, if their candidate does not make 15 percent on the night of the caucuses, you can choose a second choice. So it is the second choice of those supporters of Senator Booker and others, if they're not viable, that is so key.

That is why the Biden campaign, the Buttigieg campaign, all others are going after the second-choice candidates because that can make or break a campaign as well here. So that is why the math and all the -- you know, the organization here is so, so important --

CABRERA: Yes.

ZELENY: -- in these final three weeks.

CABRERA: The process is important, and it just goes to show why Iowa can be so unpredictable --

ZELENY: Right.

CABRERA: -- especially at this stage. Thank you very much, Jeff Zeleny, especially for standing out in the cold on this very chilly Sunday evening.

ZELENY: No problem, it's winter. Feels good.

(LAUGHTER)

CABRERA: It is, keeps you alive. It makes you feel alive. Thank you, Jeff.

Now, foreign policy is likely to be a hot topic at Tuesday's debate. And with the events in the Middle East, Bernie Sanders has raised the issue of Vice President Biden's 2003 vote for the Iraq War as a senator.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SANDERS: Joe Biden voted and helped lead the effort for the war in Iraq, the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in the modern history of this country.

JOE BIDEN (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: You're not going to get me in a fight with Bernie.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Thank you. We're running late, folks.

BIDEN: Bernie's got enough baggage.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He says you have baggage.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CABRERA: Joining us now, Democratic strategist and debate coach, Bob Barnett. He has worked on 10 presidential campaigns and has advised everyone from Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama.

Bob, good to have you with us.

BOB BARNETT, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Thank you, Ana, good to be with you today. I'm glad I'm not standing out in the snow like poor Jeff Zeleny.

(LAUGHTER)

CABRERA: Oh, for people like you, we make sure you're in a nice warm studio.

BARNETT: Thank you.

CABRERA: Bob, which strategy do each of these candidates need to bring Tuesday night?

BARNETT: I think each one has their own goals, their own strategies.

Let's start with Joe Biden. I think Joe Biden has to have another strong error-free performance, try to demonstrate as he's been trying to demonstrate that he's a man of deep experience for eight years in the White House, many years in the Senate. And of course, with foreign policy coming to the forefront over the last week, it gives him, I think, a great advantage.

I think Bernie Sanders, to me, is making a mistake. But he has clearly decided that he wants to go after Joe Biden on a vote from 20 years ago, and he wants to go after Elizabeth Warren, amazingly to me, by trying to say she's an elitist progressive.

I went through the '16 election with Hillary Clinton. I actually played Bernie in the rehearsals for all nine debates, so I know him well. And I fear when I see this that if he doesn't get it, we're going to have the same thing we had in '16, an absence of support, an absence of encouragement to his supporters, which could be extremely harmful as I think it was in '16.

Elizabeth Warren, I think is employing a pretty smart strategy. My sense is, over the past week or so, she's tried to spend a lot of time trying to encourage Kamala Harris' supporters to come her way. She got the valuable endorsement of Julian Castro, and I think that will help her try to corral some of his supporters. So I think she's emphasizing more shared goals, more commonality than she is the plans and the cost of the plans, which I think is smart.

That's what I think the top three will probably be doing.

CABRERA: OK. Speaking of Senator Warren, she hasn't been shying away from calling out some of her fellow 2020 candidates. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WARREN: You can look oh-so-sophisticated, oh-so-smart, by backing off from the big ideas. Not now, too hard, can't do this.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mayor Pete!

WARREN: But think about this, when --

(LAUGHTER AND CHEERS)

WARREN: I didn't hear that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CABRERA: I know it was hard to hear, but she made kind of a dig at -- was referring to Mayor Pete Buttigieg. I just wonder, you mentioned how, you know, you're concerned about Bernie Sanders and sort of some divisiveness, perhaps, in his rhetoric. At this stage, is it smart for the Democratic candidates to be attacking each other versus taking on the President?

BARNETT: Well, let me answer that in two ways, first with respect to the Elizabeth Warren clip that you've shown. I think it's a smart thing for her, with the caucus-goers in Iowa and the voters in the primary in New Hampshire and on and on, to emphasize big ideas because I think that's how she is going to differentiate herself from the more moderate candidates. So I think that's smart.

I hope -- I hope, and I hoped this last time and I didn't come to pass, that we'll spend a lot more time talking about the opponent in the general election than we will about each other on Tuesday. I think we've moved to a point where you have to win the nomination before you can be in the general, but you better show people that you can go against the person who is in the White House who you will be running against. Electability.

[18:40:04]

CABRERA: And what about the candidates who didn't make the stage, what can they hope for?

BARNETT: I think it's very difficult if you're not on the stage. It's not impossible. It's unfortunate that there are some very good people not on the stage. You mentioned Cory Booker in the prior piece, Michael Bloomberg. I would add Michael Bennet, who I think is a terrific candidate who just hasn't seemed to have caught on.

I think it's very difficult if you're not on that stage. Look, we're talking about it, it's Sunday. We will be talking about this Monday and Tuesday. For the next two days after the debate, we'll be talking about the clips from the debate. And if you're not one of those people who was there at the debate, I think it's very difficult to get attention.

CABRERA: Bob Barnett, you're a wealth of experience, thank you so much for sharing with us.

BARNETT: Thank you for having me.

CABRERA: And don't forget, you can watch the last debate before the Iowa caucuses right here, the "CNN PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE IN PARTNERSHIP WITH THE DES MOINES REGISTER," this Tuesday night at 9:00, only on CNN.

As an area the size of Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island combined burn in Australia, American firefighters are lending a hand in the wake of the historic fires there. Their story, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:45:19]

CABRERA: Firefighters from across the United States are now being called heroes in Australia where they're teaming up with firefighters there to help stop the deadly wildfires that have been burning for months.

Australia's Prime Minister now says there were things he, quote, could have handled much better after facing heavy criticism for his initial response to this wildfire crisis that has now claimed more than two dozen lives. This as officials airdrop thousands of pounds of food like carrots and sweet potatoes from planes to help feed the wildlife affected by the fires.

CNN's Will Ripley reports.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

WILL RIPLEY, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Hovering over Australia's hellish inferno, this American angel, a 52-year-old heavy-lift helicopter nicknamed Georgia Peach. Built in 1967 for the Vietnam War, today, it battles bushfires, dousing them with enough water to fill three large swimming pools every hour.

But in New South Wales, Australia's hardest-hit state, these helicopters sit idle, giving American firefighters who came here to help a rare day off.

RIPLEY (on camera): Today's weather is not allowing you to fly. Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's a good thing, yes.

RIPLEY (on camera): Why?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, we can't ever compete with mother nature.

RIPLEY (voice-over): Colorado firefighter Jay Carl (ph) says rain, lower temperatures, and higher humidity are slowing the fire's progress.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What this will do is it'll kind of put the fire in a sort of a comatose state for a few days.

RIPLEY (on camera): Nature can do more for the fire right now --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Than we can.

RIPLEY (on camera): -- than we can, yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.

RIPLEY (voice-over): He knows that break may be short-lived. Recent rains barely made a dent in Australia's historic drought. Just a few days of extreme heat could be catastrophic, reigniting a burn area the size of Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island combined.

RIPLEY (on camera): Is there any way to have enough resources to fight a fire this big?

SUPERINTENDENT MARK WILLIAMS, NSW RURAL FIRE SERVICE: Not of this magnitude and not of this intensity.

RIPLEY (voice-over): For the first time, Superintendent Mark Williams takes us inside Nowra's fire control center. We see Australians and Americans working together. The two nations have agreed to share fire resources.

WILLIAMS: I've been to the United States and Canada on numerous occasions. But so far, for an insight (ph), it's great to have that reciprocal effort now coming back in to assist us in our times of need.

RIPLEY (voice-over): More than 150 fire specialists from two dozen U.S. states are in Australia, some traveling more than 16 hours.

(APPLAUSE)

RIPLEY (voice-over): These Americans got a hero's welcome when they landed in Sydney last week. Even the city's iconic Opera House lit up its sails for all the firefighters risking their lives.

BART KICKLIGHTER, FOREST FIRE CHIEF, COLUMBIA RIVER GORGE NATIONAL SCENIC AREA: I felt really good. I was very proud to be able to come over here and help.

RIPLEY (voice-over): Bart Kicklighter from Oregon says the two nations are sharing manpower and brainpower at a critical time.

RIPLEY (on camera): Have you ever seen anything at this magnitude?

KICKLIGHTER: No. We have large fires, of course, in the United States and all over the world, but this is just unprecedented.

RIPLEY (voice-over): He's never seen a fire so fast, so big, so hot. An ominous sign of what could lie ahead, not just for Australia but the U.S. and the world.

Will Ripley, CNN, Nowra, Australia.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

CABRERA: Back here in the U.S., President Trump rolled back an environmental policy that has been in place for 50 years. He says it will speed up infrastructure projects, but environmentalists are outraged. We'll explain why.

[18:48:46]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CABRERA: With everything that happened this week, here's a headline you might have missed but you need to know about it, an impeachment -- or I should say, an announcement from President Trump that he is weakening environmental rules, so he can make it easier for major projects like bridges, highways, mines, and pipelines to be built.

But environmental experts warn easing up regulations could also speed up the effects of climate change. CNN's Drew Griffin has more.

DREW GRIFFIN, CNN SENIOR INVESTIGATIVE CORRESPONDENT: Ana, the new proposed rule change is just going to make it easier to do just about anything when it comes to building, drilling, digging, mining, or even farming because the environmental permitting process for all those activities is going to be much faster and will no longer need to include studying the bigger environmental impacts like climate change.

The President making the announcement with a group of union officials, ranchers, and builders. All industries, he says, have been unnecessarily stalled because of the nearly 50-year-old National Environmental Policy Act.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Today, we're taking

another historic step in our campaign to slash job-killing regulations and improve the quality of life for all of our citizens.

In the past, many Americas -- of America's most critical infrastructure projects have been tied up and bogged down by an outrageously slow and burdensome federal approval process.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GRIFFIN: The President says the new rules will not only eliminate the need for a lot of study on climate change, but the entire environmental review process is going to be limited to just two years for bigger projects, one year for smaller ones.

The two government agencies that most of these projects go through are already run by former coal and gas lobbyists, Andrew Wheeler at the EPA and David Bernhardt at the Department of Interior. Environmental groups calling this nothing more than a huge gift to the oil and gas industry.

[18:55:00]

They are planning to fight the changes in court. The Sierra Club director is saying that this proposed change is, quote, an attempt to write Donald Trump's climate denial into official government policy -- Ana.

CABRERA: Drew Griffin, thank you.

What a difference a week makes. After threatening to bomb dozens of Iran's cultural sites, President Trump today is tweeting support to Iran's citizens protesting the regime's shootdown of a civilian airliner. What's the impact of the President's words now? We'll discuss.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)